Thesis – On ‘Dangerous Ideas’
Some ideas and arguments should be proscribed because of their implications.
[I’ve been thinking about a comment Samuel made regarding science and religion …]
[I’ve been thinking about a comment Samuel made regarding science and religion …]
posted by MH at 11:35 pm
11 Comments:
So what exactly was the dangerous idea I am supposed to have had?
It wasn’t actually an idea you had, more your observation that certain positions can be “twisted” that got me thinking initially. From there my line of ponderment went to the idea that as far back as Plato there are those who have advocated certain ideas, with dangerous implications in the wrong hands, should be ‘censored’ (for want of a better term).
I suppose what I’m pondering presently is whether access to certain ideas should be restricted (I’m not really interested in the means) for the ‘good’ …
It is a valid question. Where you might place the answer hinges on a number of factors.
If you think that the freedom of access to ideas is a strong 'intrinsic' good, (and hence their denial bad) then obviously, your answer will be "No".
Similarly, if you take the position that restricting access to ideas does more harm than good overall, then from a utilitarian viewpoint, you will be against this restriction.
This is all well and good, except that the above positions are somewhat controversial, by current political and theoretical standards.
The problem I find with these views is that not everyone might be capable of making what we might see as the right decision. If a large proportion of your population cannot see that a given idea is bad/dangerous/de-stabilizing, or that they are prone to interpreting it in a negative and destructive way, then like it or not you have two options.
1. Get you population up to speed on why this is a Bad Idea. Education, rigorous public debate and all that.
2. Supress the idea, so they don't fall under its influence.
Number 2 is hard, but 1. is much harder.
Maybe we should split the difference, and create a test that you have to pass to gain access to certain dangerous ideas. (Obviously we would have access to everything).
I’m presently thinking that there was some merit in the Roman Curia restricting – via the charge of heresy – access to certain ideas before their implications were fully thought out and refined (thus reducing the problems that such ideas cause various individuals) …
I can understand the positions as you present them, but am unable to determine where I stand at the moment.
I understand what you are considering. But from what we know (or think we know) about the relationship between power and knowledge we would be forced to admit that the decision of what is heresy, and what isn't has little or nothing to do with the truth (as much as there is such a thing) of the matter or even the possible implications might be bad for people. A structure such as this would function primarily to consolidate its own power. Of course we wuld think we were doing the right thing, but how many 'right' decisions would we deliberately make that could have a negative effect on the structure or our places in it? Bugger all, I suspect.
This is where paternalism falls down. Allowing the general populace unrestricted access to all ideas could clearly cause some trouble. But in seeking to withhold certain information, we are inevitably opened to the possibility of making decisions base on what suits us, rather than what suits the populace. With such power, how could we not? It would be like asking Gyges to just sit around and watch his flock. Would this happen? Of course not. He'd throttle me and then run off to seduce the king's wife or daughter or both.
Seducing wives and daughters with power! Brilliant why didn't I think of that. You're a genious Sam. Where can we get some of this said 'power'?
Also, its interesting that you refer to Gyges, which I feel was ultimately used to describe why we should have that sort of censorship. Plato goes on to describe his republic as one where the strictest of regulation on poetry, music and art were in place, and even some fallacies being propagated to keep the social division working harmoniously. You're point is right, we would seduce the wife and daughters of many a king and I'm sure many others who aren't a king, but if you understand justice Sam, then Sam, you have the true knowledge to censor for the good of the all. And would you argue with plato?
Well if I had true knowledge of justice...
It's right there in the republic. Lets build the republic Sam. That is what we should do. Build the republic, and then Martin can live out his dream of philosopher-kingship and I can make everybody listen to the music that I like and you can live in your christian free zone.
I think you need to get out more.
I go away for a couple of days and this is what happens ...
Can I have a couple more to think over everything that has been elaborated since my last post?
I know what you mean. Things are heating up in the newcastle philo-blogsphere.
Post a Comment
<< Home